Preliminary Enquiry Against Unknown Persons May Not Be Strictly Barred; But Prior Sanction Requirement U/S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Cannot Be Bypassed: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has clarified that though the preliminary enquiry against unknown persons may not be strictly barred, but it cannot be used as a garb by the Investigating Agency to bypass prior approval requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention Of Corruption Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 17A of the Act, which mandates obtaining such approval before proceeding with any investigation or inquiry involving a public servant's actions during their official duties. "The preliminary enquiry against unknown persons may not be strictly barred under Section 17A of PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, if the offenders are unknown, but at the same time the same cannot be used as a garb by the Investigating Agency to bypass the provision for seeking prior approval under Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018," it said. 

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta while quashing proceedings against a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) officer.

The officer was implicated based on an entry in a computer record that suggested a financial exchange with contractors for "smooth functioning" during his official duties, although no formal complaint had been made. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated a suo moto enquiry, which eventually led to the registration of a case under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 477A (falsification of accounts) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

However, the Court noted that while the alleged incidents took place before the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, the case was filed after the amendment, making Section 17A applicable.

Section 17A of the Act prohibits any inquiry, investigation, or prosecution against a public servant without prior sanction from the competent authority. In this case, the competent authority refused to grant sanction, citing a lack of credible evidence to prosecute the petitioner.

The Court observed that the refusal of prior approval by the competent authority under Section 17A is similar to the consideration of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and should be binding on the investigating agency unless new incriminating evidence is presented. “The refusal of prior approval by the Competent Authority under Section 17A is akin to consideration of sanction by the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988, and is binding on the Investigating Agency unless some new incriminating evidence comes on record, since the Competent Authority is in the best position to factually assess and consider if there has been any irregularity or illegality,” the Court said.

The Court further criticized the CBI’s enquiry, noting that it appeared to be based solely on an entry in a computer record, uncovered during an investigation under the Income Tax Act, without any supporting evidence. The Court characterized the proceedings as a "fishing or roving enquiry" and an abuse of the legal process. It highlighted the importance of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), both of which offer protections to public servants against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.

“The enquiry has been initiated suo moto on the basis of an entry made in computer records, as revealed in the enquiry conducted by the authorities under the Income Tax Act. The proceedings against the petitioner appear to be simply a fishing or roving enquiry by the Investigating Agency,” the Court observed.

Given the lack of evidence and the failure to obtain prior sanction, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, deeming the case to be an abuse of judicial process. “The registration of the FIR and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, along with all actions emanating from them, are quashed,” the Court concluded.

Cause Title: Lambodar Prasad Pandy v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Neutral Citation No. 2024: DHC: 6950]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocates Saurabh Rajpal, Siddhant Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh, Sharian Mukherjee, Rekha Angara, Aman Akhtar

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anupam S. Sharma, Advocates Prakarsh Airan, Harpreet Kalsi, Abhishek Batra, Ripudaman Sharma, Vashisht Rao, Syamantak Modgill

Click here to read/download the Judgment